The abolition of serfdom was approaching, and the peasant question was placed on the agenda of the day. The interests of the higher classes were defended by the government, by the nobility's organizations, and by the majority of literature; only the interests of the peasant masses found no sincere and disinterested defenders.

And so Chernyshevsky, throwing caution to the winds, rushed into battle both against the open and hypocritical defenders of the interests of the serf-owners and against the representatives of nascent bourgeois tendencies...

For this purpose Chernyshevsky wrote a series of brilliant articles, among which we may point out the articles "Economic Activity and Legislation," "Capital and Labor," "The July Monarchy," "Cavaignac," and so forth. In these same articles and in a whole series of others, Chernyshevsky strove to expose bourgeois liberalism and to show that it was incapable even of carrying through to completion its own struggle against absolutism and the survivals of feudal order, and that it was essentially the representative of the interests of the great proprietors, being in principle hostile to the interests of the laboring democratic masses...

To lay a foundation for the worldview of the emerging young Russian democracy, Chernyshevsky took advantage of the appearance of Lavrov's pamphlet "Essays on Questions of Practical Philosophy" and wrote his own brilliant article "The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy," in which he set forth the fundamental tenets of Feuerbach's materialism and subjected idealist worldview to merciless criticism...

It can be said without exaggeration that there was not a single major political question that occupied Russian society to which Chernyshevsky did not hasten to respond with his sensible and authoritative word... The Prometheus of Russian revolution, as Rusanov* aptly calls him, did not spare himself in defending the happiness of his native people and clearing the way for future fighters...

[37-38] Reactionaries, hostile to the emancipation of women as well as to the liberation of the individual in general, insinuated that Chernyshevsky in "What Is to Be Done?" preached the so-called "free love"*. Of course, this is slander or an organic inability to understand the psychology of the new free people...

We know that Chernyshevsky once dreamed of a scholarly career. But soon he convinced himself that it would be far more useful to the Russian people in another field. This democrat by conviction and fighter by temperament could not withdraw to the cold heights of academic science at a time when life was seething all around and there was a felt necessity to illuminate for the broad strata of Russian society the meaning of the events taking place around them and those being prepared...

[42] From the beginning of Lessing's activity to Schiller's death, during the course of 50 years, the development of one of the greatest European nations, the future of lands from the Baltic to the Mediterranean Sea, from the Rhine to the Oder, was determined by a literary movement.

Almost all other social factors were not favorable to the development of the German people. Literature alone led it forward, struggling against countless obstacles.

Here in Chernyshevsky spoke the enlightener, here confidence in the power of Reason and the force of knowledge gained the upper hand in him over his materialist views in sociology. The typical enlightener Lessing was especially dear to Chernyshevsky also because he reminded him in many respects of Belinsky, and the epoch of Lessing reminded him of the 40s and 50s of Russian history. In both cases it was a "period of storm and stress," and the enlightener's enthusiasm for other enlighteners is perfectly excusable**...

* See, for example, the vile pamphlet by Prof. P. P. Tsitovich of Odessa University, published in 1879 under the title "What They Did in the Novel 'What Is to Be Done?'" — A series of slanderous pamphlets by this libeler, directed against "nihilism," drew the attention of the government, which in 1880 granted him a subsidy for publishing the anti-revolutionary newspaper "Bereg." This prototype of "Russia" and "Russian Banner" met with no success, and publication soon ended in lamentable fiasco and, it seems, embezzlement. — Excerpts from this pamphlet, unfortunately very incomplete, may be seen in the book by N. Denisyuk — "Critical Literature on the Works of N. G. Chernyshevsky." Moscow, 1908.

** In this respect Chernyshevsky sometimes goes so far as to make exaggerations uncharacteristic of his usual strict realism. Thus, he explains the obstruction by officials of popular sobriety by the fact that "they were poorly educated and studied too little" (Works, IV, 396). But such assertions occur in him rarely.

575

strength and fragrance; this is the color of the best people, these are the movers of movers, this is the salt of the salt of the earth"*.

Thus, by the end of his literary activity Chernyshevsky, despite his negative attitude

NB

* It is believed that in the figure of Rakhmetov Chernyshevsky depicted a certain Bakhmetiev, who is portrayed quite differently in Herzen's work ("General Fund." Collection of posthumous articles. Geneva, 1874, p. 181 et seq.). Herzen met him in London in 1858; approximately at this time Rakhmetov in Chernyshevsky's novel leaves for abroad. In our author's work, Rakhmetov appears abroad to Feuerbach in order to offer him money for the publication of his works (incidentally, this once again shows how highly Chernyshevsky regarded Feuerbach, "the greatest of European thinkers of the nineteenth century, the father of new philosophy." "What Is to Be Done?", l.c., 194); Bakhmetiev, on the other hand, came to London to Herzen in order to offer him part of his capital for the cause of Russian propaganda.

Here is how Herzen describes Bakhmetiev:

"A young man with the appearance of a cadet, shy, very cheerless and with a peculiar exterior, rather crudely finished, like seventh or eighth sons of steppe landowners. Very taciturn, he remained almost silent the whole time; it was evident that something was on his mind, but he had not come to the possibility of expressing it.

I left, inviting him to dine in two or three days. Before that I met him on the street.

'May I walk with you?' he asked.

'Of course; it is not I who am in danger with you, but you with me. But London is large.'

'I am not afraid,' and suddenly then, biting the bit, he spoke rapidly: 'I will never return to Russia, no, no, I decidedly will not return to Russia...'

'Please, you are so young.'

'I love Russia, love it very much; but there are people there... There is no living for me there. I want to establish a colony on completely socialist foundations; I have thought all this through and now I am going straight there.'

'That is, where?'

'To the Marquesas Islands.'

Out of the 50,000 francs he had, Bakhmetiev took 30 thousand with him to the Marquesas Islands, tying them up in a kerchief "the way one ties up a pound of gooseberries or nuts," and left 20 thousand with Herzen for the cause of propaganda: this was the "general fund," which later caused so much discord among the Russian emigration. The subsequent fate of Bakhmetiev is completely unknown; he disappeared without a trace. In Herzen's portrayal he appears as some sort of unbalanced, almost half-witted eccentric, very little resembling the formidable and stern figure of Rakhmetov. But then it must be said: Herzen was organically incapable of understanding Russian revolutionaries of that time; it was on this basis that all those misunderstandings occurred which poisoned the last days of his life. If Herzen could so falsely understand the writers Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, what is surprising if he completely failed to understand the angular and stern representative of revolutionary youth? But on the other hand, it is quite possible that one of two other suppositions is true:

either Bakhmetiev did not serve as a prototype for Rakhmetov at all, or Chernyshevsky strongly idealized him, creating an image having nothing in common with the original, or combining in it traits from the character of Dobrolyubov (the stern sense of civic duty), Bakunin (travels through Slavic lands, cf. also Kelsieyev), Serakovsky (rapprochement with all classes), etc.

604
V. I. LENIN

toward Russian society and distrust of the activity of the popular masses, began to admit the possibility of a broad revolutionary movement, provoked by the peasantry's disillusionment with the reform of 1861. On the other hand, he could establish the existence of new people, revolutionaries from the intelligentsia, ready to place themselves at the head of the people in their struggle against the kingdom of exploitation and oppression...

By what path, then, was the revolutionary movement in Russia supposed to go from the standpoint of Chernyshevsky?

Above (in chapter VI) we saw that in his general political views Chernyshevsky stood close to Blanquism — to Blanquism not in the sense which this word later acquired and which is still used in everyday speech*, but rather in the sense in which Marx understood it, when he recognized Blanquists as the true representatives of the revolutionary proletariat... Blanquists held to the point of view that a minority is strong only insofar as it correctly expresses, if not the strivings, then at least the interests of the laboring majority.

On this same point of view, the only one possible for epochs characterized by passivity of the popular masses, Chernyshevsky apparently stood. He definitely emphasized that without the participation of the popular masses one cannot achieve serious practical results; he said that only the sympathy of wide masses is capable of ensuring the success of one or another political program and that without arousing enthusiasm in the masses, revolutionary

NB

NB

NB

* An example of such superficial understanding of Blanquism is afforded by the arguments of Mr. Nikolayev on the political views of Chernyshevsky. Having recounted his conversation with Chernyshevsky in prison labor camp, during which Nikolai Gavrilovich expressed the thought that it would have been much better if during the peasant reform the openly-serf-owning party of the nobility had won and the peasants had been liberated without land, for then catastrophe would immediately have occurred, Mr. Nikolayev concludes: "Here, as you see, is pure Blanquism: the worse, the better (!). This does not at all resemble the later theories of our homegrown Marxists (to whom, it should be said, these gentlemen Nikolayevs at one time attributed precisely the principle 'the worse, the better' and whom these gentlemen accused precisely of sympathy for the dispossession of the peasantry. — Yu. S.). Not evolution, not gradual liberation of the peasants from the means of production, not the boiling of the peasant in the factory cauldron, not his gradual transformation into a farmhand, but complete and immediate dispossession. Not evolution, toward which, I repeat, N. G. treated with indignation (?), but catastrophe. Not Marxism, but Blanquism" ("Personal Recollections," 21-22). — One must say, what a fine understanding of Chernyshevsky's views can be obtained from such a tirade!

605

will be colored by socialist hues, and given the existence of communal land ownership in Russia, it will perhaps be possible to draw considerably closer to socialism. If, however, the revolutionary party fails to achieve its goal, if the result of the revolution is only the conquest of political freedom, then even in such a case the gains will be considerable*.

Thus, popular movement is possible; its slogan is—land and liberty; the path—seizure of power by revolutionaries with the active support and sympathy of the popular masses; the result—a labor republic, and in case of the defeat of the revolutionaries—in any case a significant improvement in the condition of the people. This is the program that Chernyshevsky developed before his contemporaries, this is the path upon which he invited them to embark or, more precisely, the path toward which he impelled them through his writings. But did he personally take any part in the revolutionary undertakings of that time? This is an extremely controversial question, to which even at the present time we cannot give a definitive answer. His secret, if there was any secret here, Chernyshevsky took to the grave. And in such a case he truly should be recognized as a great conspirator. N. Rusanov, relating what Shelgunov told him, recounts that Chernyshevsky, after prolonged hesitation and careful weighing of arguments for and against, decided to intervene actively in the course of events, having recognized that there was no other way out of the historical impasse, and that certain chances for the triumph of the popular cause existed*. But in what concrete terms Chernyshevsky's participation in revolutionary affairs actually expressed itself, Rusanov does not state definitively, except for his indications of Chernyshevsky's probable authorship in composing the proclamation "To the Gentlemen's Peasants"...

It is doubtful whether Chernyshevsky participated in "Land and Liberty"; at any rate, there are no direct indications of this. As is known, this society arose at the end of 1861 or the beginning of 1862. What the original composition of its founders was, we still do not know; it is possible that N. Serno-Solovyevich was one of them. In 1862, several students joined it, including N. Utin and L. Panteleev, author of rather incomplete memoirs about this organization. Incidentally, it is quite possible that the society "Land and Liberty" as a definite organization actually arose after that gathering which took place at Utin's apartment in the spring of 1862 and which Panteleev recounts**. The initiator of the gathering, a good acquaintance of Chernyshevsky's ("the gentleman in pince-nez"), informed the newcomers of the existence of a central committee, but it is quite probable that this was simply a myth fabricated for greater importance, and that no committee existed at all. In any case, it is highly characteristic that when Utin, at the end of the gathering, asked Panteleev the question: "What do you think, Nikolai Gavrilovich—is he a member of the committee?", Panteleev answered without hesitation: "I don't think—

* "Socialists of the West and Russia," p. 294.
** "From the Memoirs of the Past," Part I, pp. 252 et seq.

**EDITORIAL FOOTNOTE:**

* At the end of 1871, Chernyshevsky, bidding farewell to his young fellow prisoners on hard labor, expounded to them something like his political [382] profession de foi, which Shaganoff conveys as follows: "He told us that since Rousseau in France, and then in other European countries, democratic parties had grown accustomed to idealizing the people—placing upon them such hopes as were never realized, but led only to even greater disillusionment. The autocracy of the people led only to the transfer of that autocracy, whether to Napoleon I, and not corrected by that error, repeatedly transferred it by plebiscite to Napoleon III. Any party that possesses military force can monopolize supreme popular rights to its advantage and, through skillful misrepresentation, become the ostensible exclusive representative and defender of the people's needs—a party of exceptional populists. He, Chernyshevsky, knows that the center of gravity lies precisely in the people, in their needs, from the disregard of which the people themselves perish, as a nation or as a state. But no people hitherto has saved itself (Belinsky expressed a similar thought shortly before his death.—Yu. S.), and even, in favorable cases acquiring autocracy for itself, transferred it to the first knave. This—transferred or not transferred, but formerly well-acquired—autocracy does not so easily pass to someone else. Becoming the executor of its people, it precisely disposes of them as if they were dead, and handles the people's property according to its own discretion. And then woe to anyone who would wish to awaken this apparently dead one—to interfere in its economic affairs! Along the path, both word and conscience are strangled, for from these things come various troubles for power... And how can a prisoner bypass his jailer? Must he not, before all else, have dealings with him alone? What jailer would of his own free will allow a prisoner to make an appeal for the destruction of the prison? Of course, forms are an unreliable thing. Under any forms one can build a strong fortress for the industrious farmer. On the other hand, perhaps it is well that forms are unreliable. Within them there is always the possibility of party struggle and the victory of one party over another—and in practice victory is always progressive. Most terrible of all is the formless monster, the all-devouring Leviathan. Chernyshevsky said earlier that Russian history would not have proceeded as it did had the party of the Verkhovniki triumphed when Anna came to the throne. No party can refrain from sharing power for the sake of its own salvation... Under the rule of parties there is at least more probability of accomplishing something for the people than in the absence of all political forms, and consequently of all possibility of undertaking anything in the indicated direction" (Shaganoff, l. c., pp. 28-29).—This is not quite similar to populism with its political indifference and its contempt for constitutional forms.

610
V. I. LENIN